connections
9 December 2003 20:54![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
juldeaI've had this post rolling around in my brain for a while now, and now I'm finally posting it. It's not finalized as a concept by any means, but it's at the point where I'm willing to accept input.
There are four different ways to connect to people: mentally, emotionally, physically, and romantically.
People with whom you connect to mentally are peers. You can discuss intellectual concepts with them. They aren't necessarily at the same intelligence/education level as you, but you have the ability to communicate across the gap to the point that the discussions are not too difficult for either of you to carry on. These people I will call acquaintances (among other things - when I say in this post what I call them, I'm referring to people with whom I only share this connection).
People with whom you connect to emotionally are supports. You can cry on them (or whatever emotional release is to you). You can let them see you naked; not undressed, but emotionally vulnerable. Not everyone trusts enough to have a large group of these people, or even a group at all. I call these people confidants.
People with whom you connect to physically are partners. Without being too graphic, these are people who enjoy the same physical activities you do. I clarify this as being semi-sexual because there's the 'connection' aspect. Someone you simply love to rollerskate with is connected in more of a mental manner, I think. You aren't causing the physical sensation the other is feeling in that case. This doesn't have to be distinctly sexual; kissing and backrubs and such are non-sexual activities that involve a physical connection. But they are sexual in a deeper sense - I guess it all depends on your definition (this is one of those parts that isn't nailed down yet, if you couldn't tell). In a more explicit sense, these people share the same kink as you have. You are connected physically in the sensations that you enjoy causing each other. Anyway. I call these people ... well, I haven't been in a situation where I've only had this connection with someone, so I don't have a word for it. Perhaps I'll think one up.
Then, there's the romantic connection. This one is hard to describe, but most everyone knows what it is. It's that strange energy a person has that draws your mind to them at any given time. It goes beyond caring for them... It's the feeling that everything that is you is spurred on to even greater things because of their presence in your life. I don't feel like I'm explaining it well, but I assume you know what I'm talking about. It's a spark. And the people with whom you share this connection are partners.
There are endless combinations of these four connections that show up in the people that you interact with daily. Most people you don't connect with at all, many you connect with in only one way, some in two ways, fewer in three, and it's monumental when you find someone with whom you connect in all four ways.
And it's even less likely that they feel the exact same connection to you. These connections aren't two way - people I feel I can cry on don't all turn around and cry on me when things are going bad.
So. There is an incredibly large number of people in the world, but when you get down to it you have a chance to meet and get to know an incredibly small fraction of that. And in that fraction, how small is the amount of people you can feel connected to in all four ways? Just a few? A couple? Only one? And out of that, calculate the possibility they are feel connected to you in the same manner.
Will I have to end up settling? If I'm not willing to settle, should I just give up now?
...I shouldn't have been drinking while typing this out.
There are four different ways to connect to people: mentally, emotionally, physically, and romantically.
People with whom you connect to mentally are peers. You can discuss intellectual concepts with them. They aren't necessarily at the same intelligence/education level as you, but you have the ability to communicate across the gap to the point that the discussions are not too difficult for either of you to carry on. These people I will call acquaintances (among other things - when I say in this post what I call them, I'm referring to people with whom I only share this connection).
People with whom you connect to emotionally are supports. You can cry on them (or whatever emotional release is to you). You can let them see you naked; not undressed, but emotionally vulnerable. Not everyone trusts enough to have a large group of these people, or even a group at all. I call these people confidants.
People with whom you connect to physically are partners. Without being too graphic, these are people who enjoy the same physical activities you do. I clarify this as being semi-sexual because there's the 'connection' aspect. Someone you simply love to rollerskate with is connected in more of a mental manner, I think. You aren't causing the physical sensation the other is feeling in that case. This doesn't have to be distinctly sexual; kissing and backrubs and such are non-sexual activities that involve a physical connection. But they are sexual in a deeper sense - I guess it all depends on your definition (this is one of those parts that isn't nailed down yet, if you couldn't tell). In a more explicit sense, these people share the same kink as you have. You are connected physically in the sensations that you enjoy causing each other. Anyway. I call these people ... well, I haven't been in a situation where I've only had this connection with someone, so I don't have a word for it. Perhaps I'll think one up.
Then, there's the romantic connection. This one is hard to describe, but most everyone knows what it is. It's that strange energy a person has that draws your mind to them at any given time. It goes beyond caring for them... It's the feeling that everything that is you is spurred on to even greater things because of their presence in your life. I don't feel like I'm explaining it well, but I assume you know what I'm talking about. It's a spark. And the people with whom you share this connection are partners.
There are endless combinations of these four connections that show up in the people that you interact with daily. Most people you don't connect with at all, many you connect with in only one way, some in two ways, fewer in three, and it's monumental when you find someone with whom you connect in all four ways.
And it's even less likely that they feel the exact same connection to you. These connections aren't two way - people I feel I can cry on don't all turn around and cry on me when things are going bad.
So. There is an incredibly large number of people in the world, but when you get down to it you have a chance to meet and get to know an incredibly small fraction of that. And in that fraction, how small is the amount of people you can feel connected to in all four ways? Just a few? A couple? Only one? And out of that, calculate the possibility they are feel connected to you in the same manner.
Will I have to end up settling? If I'm not willing to settle, should I just give up now?
...I shouldn't have been drinking while typing this out.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 9 Dec 2003 18:46 (UTC)If you found someone who satisfies all four ways in which you feel a need to be connected to other people, then it seems that it would be really easy to neglect the other people in you life.
What happens then when you lose that someone and you have no one left to fill any of the connections?
no subject
on 9 Dec 2003 21:37 (UTC)I realize my little rant is possibly not the best way to look at things, it was just something kicking around in my head. It's by no means The Way Things Work. For example, like
I don't believe that finding someone you connect with in all four of my ways would mean that you wouldn't need or want connections with other people. Relationships with people are all different, and each person gives you something specific that you can't get from anyone else. If one person could satisfy you in all ways, then they'd have to have a whole bunch of multiple personalities ;)
If, however, one does neglect the people in their life due to someone they feel is completely fulfilling, and then they lose that someone, it doesn't mean there is no one left to fill the connections. Even if they've been horrible enough to their friends that they aren't willing to reconnect, there are 6 billion other people in the world with whom to connect. Our protagonist's life is not over.
...
It occurs to me that this could be more than someone forgetting to log in and asking questions. If this is meant to be a personal attack of some kind (although I don't feel that I have neglected any of my friends in any way recently) please let me know who you are.
oh no!
on 10 Dec 2003 11:48 (UTC)I just like to do random searches and read people's stuff. Yours came up and I just commented. That's all :)
I guess I just wanted more clarification about why you feel the need to find someone with whom you connect in all four ways when friends provide many of those connections. Do you really need more than what you call the romantic connection?
also, I guess I have been neglected by too many friends who immersed themselves in their significant others. Maybe it's made me a little bitter ;) However, it does happen quite often, and I know it's not just me.
Re: oh no!
on 10 Dec 2003 22:26 (UTC)As to your question, the reason that more than the romantic connection is needed is that it's not self-sustaining. A partnership won't work if you're not mentally, emotionally, and physically connected too. Different mixes produce different results, but I'd think all four were needed in The One (if such a person is to be found).
I feel the need for that person because I'm not yet emotionally stable. ;) Hey, at least I admit it? And hopefully I'll begin working on that and pushing back the search for such a person until the point when I am healthy enough to do without him. Heh. Weird how it works like that...
And yeah... neglecting your friends when you find a new SO happens. I'm sure I've done it before. I would tend to think that it's part of not being stable, but I can't make that sweeping statement without knowing more about other people's situations. I do know it's not a good thing, though. I hope my friends would let me know if I were doing it...
Re: oh no!
on 11 Dec 2003 05:49 (UTC)Then why is companionship necessary at all? Are people fundamentally broken and in need of the glue of another person to hold them together, or is it simply a desire to 'enrich your life?' One would think that enrichment could be found without the necessary investment into another person, if one were emotionally stable.
Or is it just that people need to use other people to feel better about themselves, even if it's a mutually beneficial relationship? I've seen parasitic relationships before. Are all relationships based on a parasite/symbiont model, or is there something else?
...not that I have a problem, in a larger sense, with people feeding off someone elese until they've gained emotional stability and then looking for a more appropriate match. As long as they're honest with themselves about their actions.
Re: oh no!
on 11 Dec 2003 21:16 (UTC)There seem to be very few people in the world who don't feel the need to be in a relationship, though. The question is, are these people the mentally stable ones? Or are they unstable - either past the point of needing companionship, or in a way that doesn't need companionship?
There's always the functional explanation - all that's needed to create a child is one male and one female. As animals it is our function to live and propagate the species. Therefore we tend to break off into pairs. *shrug*
later ponderings
on 15 Dec 2003 12:26 (UTC)I have decided on an either-or. Either all relationships are parasitic/symbiotic, or there are very few mentally stable people in the world and I've had no contact with them.
I say the latter because the vast majority of humans do choose a partner for extended periods in their life, and mourn the loss of that person when s/he leaves their life. If there were nothing gained by the relationship, there would be nothing to miss.
Of course, the definition of "mentally stable" is fluid, and in some ways I'm sure no one is stable. Or, if it is defined by whether or not one can satisfy him/herself fully without companionship, well...
Are people fundamentally broken and in need of the glue of another person to hold them together, or is it simply a desire to 'enrich your life?'
Why not both, in some sense? Humans are fundamentally flawed in the sense that each of us is only one person, not omniscient and omnipotent, nor ever able to gain those states (sadly). Enrichment is found through exploring new and different ways to see the world and all things in it. Aren't you frustrated when we can't debate because we agree? Don't you consider it a high mark of praise to share something you care deeply about with another person?
Yes, enrichment is possible, to some extent, on your own. However, as I said, omniscience is impossible. There will always be a new way to see the world, a way you don't quite grasp but appreciate nonetheless. It is in appreciation of their ... paradigms, I suppose, that we make friends.
The final question then begged is, why one romantic relationship instead of lots of different friends to fulfill us in all these ways? Simple answer: it's easy. Our psyches crave for it because it's all our needs met by one person - and you're the one who gave me the best reasoning for why that is.
It's not easy if that person leaves, of course, but that's why it's stupid to ignore your friends even if you think that your partner gives you everything you need. Which they don't, since they are yet another person without omniscience/presence...
For the record, I removed an absurd number of, "In my opinion," "In my worldview," "I think," and, "I believe," phrases from this comment.
no subject
on 10 Dec 2003 07:15 (UTC)If you found someone who satisfies all four ways in which you feel a need to be connected to other people, then it seems that it would be really easy to neglect the other people in you life.
There is some tendency towards this, it's true. In the first year since getting married, I let many friendships erode substantisally, as did my wife. Now I'm making a conscious effort to socialize a bit more (and joining LJ seems to have helped with that :-)
What happens then when you lose that someone and you have no one left to fill any of the connections?
I've worried about that a lot. But possible future pain is no reason to give up definite current pleasure. [I even have a 15th century lecture on this topic that I sometimes give at SCA events...]
no subject
on 9 Dec 2003 19:17 (UTC)I don't know who said it first, but "I'd rather be alone for the right reasons then with someone for the wrong ones."
no subject
on 9 Dec 2003 22:24 (UTC)I'm not really planning on giving up. It's just kind of intimidating to think about. Which I guess gives credit to the idea of not thinking about it and just going on with life.
And, I said something very similar to that on my own a long time ago.
no subject
on 9 Dec 2003 20:13 (UTC)Try forming new and distinctive strategies for every new person you meet. Don't hold them to criteria that you have created. There are indeed 6 billion people in the world, so there's no need to constrain yourself to 1 of them to meet all of your Maslowian needs. Because, even in the 4-vector model you proposed, those connections are going to be made to varying extents. They are not binary states.
You only have to settle if you try to define what you want in the abstract. 6 billion is not enough permutations to allow for every possibility. Not even a small percentage. Anything you dream up as ideal probably does not exist in human form.
Your envelope of personal relationships is based on SCOPE (how many people you know) and FOCUS (how well you know them.) In order to meet more people you need to spend less time with the people you already know. In order to know people better you need to spend less time meeting new people. If you are too far invested in one of either scope or focus, try adjusting the other direction in order to vary your envelope. But evaluate each person without standards. Don't use a checklist on folks to see if they are what you are looking for, you will never ever be happy that way.
Unfinished train of thought, sorry. Maybe more later.
no subject
on 9 Dec 2003 23:58 (UTC)That being said, I still think my descriptions are valid and aren't mutually exclusive with the endless variations of relationship available. I didn't claim that connection was binary, nor do I think it's a sliding scale. There are indeed endless variations within the simple framework. Just like there are endless types of people within the male/female/other system.
I might have more to say later, but right now it's bedtime.
no subject
on 10 Dec 2003 07:10 (UTC)Perhaps "Dance partner"? Or is that too far over towards a "mental" relationship?
Then, there's the romantic connection. This one is hard to describe, but most everyone knows what it is. It's that strange energy a person has that draws your mind to them at any given time. It goes beyond caring for them... It's the feeling that everything that is you is spurred on to even greater things because of their presence in your life. I don't feel like I'm explaining it well, but I assume you know what I'm talking about. It's a spark. And the people with whom you share this connection are partners.
My working definition of capital-L Love for the past several years has been "My happiness is contingent upon my loved-one's happiness." That is, I can't be fully happy if my loved-one isn't happy, and making my loved-one happier makes me happier in turn. One does have to watch out for the potential negative feedback loop, of course...
Fairly recently, an observation has modified this slightly, or at least further sub-categorized it. There are many people who I Love when I'm with them. There are a few people that I Love when I'm not with them. There is one person that I Love all the time, present or not (luckily, I married her).
...how small is the amount of people you can feel connected to in all four ways? Just a few? A couple? Only one? And out of that, calculate the possibility they are feel connected to you in the same manner.
Will I have to end up settling? If I'm not willing to settle, should I just give up now?
For heaven's sake, don't give up!
My recommendation (as usual) is Full Honesty. There's no shame in "settling" for someone who's "quite nice but not perfect" -- as long as you're up-front with them about your feelings. I *have* seen trauma arise from situations where people "gave up and settled", made lifelong monogamous commitments -- and *then* found the Perfect Match.
And remember that relationships can change and deepen, even if you don't want them to. So can priorities. When we first met, my wife and I each had a List of properties that were (and were not) acceptable in future dating partners. Needless to say, each of us was, to the other, clearly an unacceptable partner, according to the Lists. Luckily, after knowing each other for about a year, we got over that. We still occasionally mock-mourn, "But it was such a *good* List." :-)
no subject
on 10 Dec 2003 08:39 (UTC)Addendum: This is actually more common than you might think. Potential partners tend to be repelled by desperation, and attracted by stability. This is not a particularly fair way to run a universe, but it is, in the same way that Mt. Everest is...
In my own experience, the amount of romantic attention I get is directly proportional to how stable a relationship (if any) I am in. Since getting married, it's reached an all-time high. Glad I lived this long...
no subject
on 10 Dec 2003 18:25 (UTC)no subject
on 10 Dec 2003 22:33 (UTC)no subject
on 10 Dec 2003 21:36 (UTC)And even if it isn't the key, it seems like a good thing to pursue anyway.
no subject
on 10 Dec 2003 21:59 (UTC)I think I have problems with your definition of Love, they will just have to simmer a bit before I can explain them. It's possible that they will actually be worked out as I think about them, so we'll see. Ah, if only I had the time to sit and think (and the time to sit and write, and the time to sit and read, and the time to sit and watch movies, and the time to sit and sew, and the time to etc etc etc...)
The 'giving up' comment was not one I have taken seriously, just one of those whiny exclamations one will make after a relationship fails to work out. I think I will be giving up temporarily, but not altogether.
And you're right, the solution is Full Honesty, to yourself just as much as to others. My previous Big Relationship failed because I was not honest to myself about the less-than-perfect capabilities of it, and when it came time to act on the aspects of the relationship that led to lifelong commitments, I froke out. [Froke: past tense of freak.] I realized I wasn't ready to make such commitments to that person... despite what I had told both him and myself. *sigh*
As to lists, I occasionally start creating one in my head, but I have so far kept from putting it on paper, for exactly the reasons you describe - often the best partners are ones you don't hand-pick. ;) Also, I would tend to list things that are particular to past romances, and therefore simply be setting myself up to relive those romances rather than find things in a new person to enjoy.
Although, there are some things that any romantic partner of mine better damn well be willing to do. But I'll just keep that at that, eh? ;)
no subject
on 11 Dec 2003 07:59 (UTC)Excellent formation!
As to lists, I occasionally start creating one in my head, but I have so far kept from putting it on paper,
Oh, neither of ours was on paper, but they were well worked-out mentally.
Are you familiar with Much Ado About Nothing? Benedick has a wonderful "List" speech, that really *used* to characterize me to a T:
..till all
graces be in one woman, one woman shall not come in
my grace. Rich she shall be, that's certain; wise,
or I'll none; virtuous, or I'll never cheapen her;
fair, or I'll never look on her; mild, or come not
near me; noble, or not I for an angel; of good
discourse, an excellent musician, and her hair shall
be of what colour it please God.
Naturally, in the end he ends up happily joined to a woman who is the very opposite of "mild", though she has many other virtues. After having finally abandoned my own version of Benedick's List, it seemed only appropriate to have the following reading as part of my wedding ceremony (from the end of the play, after Benedick has gotten engaged):
I'll tell thee what, prince; a college of
wit-crackers cannot flout me out of my humour. Dost
thou think I care for a satire or an epigram? No:
if a man will be beaten with brains, a' shall wear
nothing handsome about him. In brief, since I do
purpose to marry, I will think nothing to any
purpose that the world can say against it; and
therefore never flout at me for what I have said
against it; for man is a giddy thing, and this is my
conclusion.
no subject
on 11 Dec 2003 21:21 (UTC)I have indeed read Much Ado, but it has been a long time. I'd say that I would put it on my list of books to read, but that would be the longest list I have :)
man is a giddy thing
Ain't that the truth.
no subject
on 12 Dec 2003 07:34 (UTC)no subject
on 12 Dec 2003 09:45 (UTC)no subject
on 12 Dec 2003 12:48 (UTC)no subject
on 12 Dec 2003 22:07 (UTC)